Halo trademark gets refused registration

the Opposer opposed the intent to use application of Applicant’s mark HALO for handbags, briefcases, electric adapters and a wide variety of other business accessories on the ground of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. As the basis for its opposition, Opposer relied on its previously used HALO and HALO and Design marks for numerous business accessories in International Class 18, including certain goods applied for by Applicant.

To prevail on a likelihood of confusion claim brought under Trademark Act Section 2(d), a party must first prove that:

it owns “a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States …and not abandoned….” Trademark Act Section 2, 15 U.S.C. § 1052.

Here, the Opposer did not have a registration for its own HALO marks and therefore was required to establish its prior proprietary rights in and to the mark through testimony and documentary evidence showing actual use or use analogous to trademark use. Accordingly, the Opposer sought to rely on its intent to use application for HALO to establish constructive use priority rights in and to the mark. The filing date of Opposer’s intent-to-use applications was March 19, 2010, which preceded Applicant’s filing date of its HALO mark of May 5, 2014. Neither party took testimony evidence and submitted notice of reliance of their respective applications and discovery requests and responses.

The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the Opposer was entitled to rely on the filing dates of its intent to use applications to establish constructive use of its HALO mark as of that date pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Trademark Act. That being said, in order to prevail based on trademark priority, any judgment entered in favor of the Opposer would be contingent on the Opposer actually using its marks in commerce and registration issuing on its pending applications. In addition to establishing priority of rights, the Opposer would still have to bear its burden under Section 2(d) that Applicant’s HALO mark was likely to be confused with the HALO marks of Opposer.

The Board concluded that the parties’ respective marks as examined in connection with the goods and respective trade channels, pointed towards the conclusion that they were confusingly similar in sight, sound, meaning, and commercial impression such that the Opposition should be granted and registration refused. Therefore, the Board entered judgment, contingent on the issuance of the Opposer’s pending applications.

ABOUT OUR FIRM

Collen is a New York-based intellectual property law firm that is well-known among the United States and international trademark legal communities. The firm is consistently ranked among the top law firms in the United States in surveys based upon annual activity and number of trademark oppositions filed on its clients’ behalf. Read More